All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1 committed the instant crime with mental disorder is a crime committed under the influence of alcohol and physical and mental weakness.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A / Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months; suspension of execution for 4 years; observation of protection; community service work for 240 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C, D, and E (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (Defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment, 4 years of probation, 4 years of probation, observation of protection, community service work 240 hours and 240 hours of imprisonment: Defendant E: imprisonment in August, 4 years of probation, 4 years of probation, observation of protection, community service 240 hours) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence against the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the record as to the Defendant A and B’s mental and physical disorder assertion, even though Defendant A and B were deemed to have drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, in light of the background leading up to the crime and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the said Defendants had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following circumstances as revealed in the lower judgment’s “reasons for sentencing”.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant E, and Defendant D were at the end of the studio fighting, and the nature of the crime was very pleasure. Defendant A and Defendant D were repeatedly committed as indicated in its reasoning even during the period of suspension of execution, even though they were under the suspension of execution. Defendant D was at risk of causing victims.

As such, Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant E, and Defendant D constitute a somewhat contingent crime. Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant E, and Defendant D are more likely to commit a crime.